A video of MorphOS 2.0 booting on a Mac Mini [.mpeg] (PPC, of course) has appeared, indicating that MorphOS 2.0 might support Apple's Mac Mini. MorphOS developer Harry Sintonen says: "The port is real and 'official'. However, it is unlikely that any Mac version would make it to the first MOS 2.0 batch: Pegasos I, Pegasos II, and Efika come first. This Mac port is not ready either, so hold your horses."

I'd much rather have the future of desktop operating systems based on any of the big 'hobby' operating systems, either the "out of date" (BeOS or Amiga OS) or their succesors (MorphOS, AROS, Haiku) than GNOME/KDE+free UNIX, OS X or Windows Vista. If only because of resource usage... But I'm quite sure if you start digging, the underdogs all have their design advantages over the big guns, who really only seem to distinguish themselves by what are in my mind 'redundant' or easily imitable features (more advanced graphics, for instance). But there are things in BeOS or Amiga OS that you don't just add run out and to something like OS X with its huge installed base and millions of lines of written code that people are making money off now..

I used to use an Amiga, and I thought they were great. I also was registered as a BeOS Developer and used it quite a bit in the late 90s. Both had great technology in them, to be sure, but what was great in the 80s and 90s, just isn't all that special today.

You do bring up a good point though...

I know there is a segment of the market that would love to run an OS on older machines. I have about five Pentium III machines sitting around that can't run Windows XP or Linux distributions like Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSuSE that may benefit from something like MorphOS or BeOS. However, the Mac Mini just isn't one of those machines; yet. I run Leopard on my 1st generation Mac Mini, and it runs just fine.

Because of that fact, I fail to see the importance, yet, of running MorphOS on a Mac Mini. Why install an OS that doesn't do as much as the OS the Mac Mini came with?

In my opinion, a replacement OS should do at least something better than the OS you're replacing, whether that be run faster on old hardware, or some new feature that nobody else has, or simply doing some important task better or faster. If a replacement OS can't offer any of that, what's the point; other than hobbyist interest?

You still haven't got it. MOS on the Mac mini is *not* meant to
replace OS X for satisfied OS X users.
But MorphOS users get more choice of hardware (hint: the Pegasos
computers are not easy to obtain these days and are linited to 1 GHz).
MorphOS users have their reasons to like MorphOS (whatever those
reasons are..).

"In my opinion, a replacement OS should do at least something better than the OS you're replacing, whether that be run faster on old hardware, or some new feature that nobody else has, or simply doing some important task better or faster. If a replacement OS can't offer any of that, what's the point; other than hobbyist interest?"

Your opinion is flawed, I'm afraid. An OS shouldn't do much at all, it should get out of your way and let you use your apps. Today, modern OSes does too much in my opinion. It takes up resources because of it. In my opinion the OS should take care of abstracting hardware resources in a good way so developers can access and control it -- lay the playground ready for app developers to make the platform useful. These days with OSes delivering integrated web browsers and media players, even office apps (Windows) then they are taking over the tasks that 3rd party app developers should have. So when a new OS, like MorphOS, comes out and does minimal work on its own, I see it as a great thing. It will not do what the big systems out there do today - it doesn't come with MSIE 7, or Windows Media Player, or iTunes, or Garage Band, or iWorks; but many users, including me, are tired of these over bloated systems anyway. We want something small and lean :-) Morphos is a solution.

Also, many people, wrongly, let the absence of big name apps on new platforms show them in a bad light. They say: "If it doesn't have Adobe CS3, I can't use it!" - and they are right - if they are dependent on some special software to work, then they can not replace it with something non-equivalent. But an OS is a platform running apps, it is up to Adobe to support it. And if Adobe does not, then the chance is there for other devs to deliver an equivalent in time.

So what I'm saying is that in time, many alternative OSes, like MorphOS, will have on offer all the functionality that other mainstream OSes has today, developer mass allowing. But the operating system itself does not have to offer much functionality on its own. It is very reasonable to speculate that even Windows 95 could still be the main OS used by people, given that it would still have the majority of developers supporting it. I mean, in many respects, Vista is just Win95 on steroids.. It is the application availability that sets an OS apart in the mainstream, not its technical prowess. The big operating systems on market today, like MacOSX, Fedora and Windows Vista; they are huge, bloated dragons that need some slaying if you ask me :-)